- 1 Post
- 63 Comments
3·3 天前Labour had a bit more then a third of the votes, which is pretty close to were Reform is polling today. However Labour won a massive majority with those votes. If Labour wants to prevent a Reform victory they need to change the election system. It is even worse for the Tories. So long term Tory supporters will cheer them on.
We are heading into a feudal system of a sort. The wealth gap is absolutly massive and the only way to end up in the upper class is to inherit. As per usual the population feels that the system is unfair, but is unable to see the real problem. Media is really pushing far right talking points, as the upper class realizes that the system is broken and a real revolution is a problem. Thats how the US ended up with a de facto monarchy. The UK is moving towards that pretty quickly too.
The good news is that Labour might make some really usefull changes. Mainly end first past the post to prevent Reform from taking over. That might very well allow left wing parties like the LibDems and Greens to win more seats and change the narrative.
5·4 天前You could in theory eat whale meat, which would have even bigger bones. I do not recommend that, but certainly more possible then dinosaurs.
Ostrich eggs are a very real option.
You need genetic material for that and unfortunatly that does not preserve even close to well enough to clone a non avian dinosaur.
1·15 天前Why do you need me to come up with reasons justify your hate booner for China?
See? Moving the goalposts. Moving from cumulative, the real important metric, to per capita current emissions during a renewable transition, because otherwise the data doesn’t fit your preconceived, chauvinistic anti-china views.
I initially just wanted to point out that China does in fact consume a lot more coal, then you claimed. If you want to have the moral discussion, we can have that. The fundamental problem with your logic, is that you presume future emissions do not matter. The fact of the matter is that we will emit much more in the coming decades. Higher current per capita emissions make it much more likely that future emissions will be higher as well. At the 2023 rate of emissions, China emits as much as the EU cumulative did until 2023 in 25 years. Last year China increased its emissions by 0.8%. Current UN forecast put the population of China 633million and the EU at 347million. I hate to say it, but it is very realistic to presume that China ends up just as guilty by your metric as say the EU.
First of all greenhouse gases not just CO2.
It is also a metric China will not want to use. Per capita annual emissions are already higher in China then in many Western countries. More so UN population forecast shows Chinas population falling much more quickly then that of the West.
Now what will you come up with? Suddenly coal numbers don’t matter anymore?
Do you think I am here to hate on China or something? Your inital claim was:
How much coal has China cumulatively used in its history compared to the US or Europe? Spoiler alert: much less.
And when you looked at the numbers and you were clearly wrong, you moved the goal poast again:
So yeah, China would have to literally consume twice as much coal as it’s already consumed to reach US values of per-capita historical cumulative coal consumption.
Or 50% more to be at the level of the EU, using the Our World in Data numbers from 1900(thanks btw). Given current production, China would overtake the EU around 2040 in that metric.
Maybe that is because I have the elementary school education necessary to understand that burning coal and gas also causes emissions. So when I am looking at cummulative coal consumption, I have the very basic common sense to not look at CO2.
EDIT: Btw 2/3 of EU emissions happened in the last 60 years. So this very likely shows most of the EU coal consumption. Also if you happen to have actual coal numbers and want to share them, I am happy to have a look at them. But please no CO2 = coal bs.
Pollution per GDP is a bad measure. Mali has a high CO2 intensity, but the GDP per capita is low, so pollution is low. The best measures are emissions per capita in consumption and production terms. China is not a saint in either of those metrics, being rather close to the EU in both of them today.
Not so sure about that. China overtook the EU in 1987 in coal consumption, but today it is at 25,000TWh or so. In 1965 the current EU countries were at 4,500TWh. It certainly is not much less, if China has not overtaken the EU by cumulative coal consumption.
It is a modified version of Mastodon, with a Soapbox front end. It does not have ActivityPub enabled and lacks a bunch of features.
Thankfully only DDos. Truth Social is Mastodon so a security flaw could have been a real problem.
I would go with Thiel and Vance.
1·22 天前The tools are roughly the same, however the key difference is the position. With the fall of the Soviet Union Russia became nearly a regional power, which is trying to become a great power and hopes to be a super power again. The US ended up being the remaining super power and mostly controlled the world. So the US does not have a massive plan for world domination, because it already is pretty much in that position.
You can see that with China. The US was very interested of integrating China in its global economic system. However now it is starting to take over, so we see trade wars and things like the Muslims.
Similar situation in the Middle East. The US used to import a lot of oil, so low oil prices were important. At the same time oil is traded in dollars, which as everybody needs oil, creates a lot of demand for the dollar. The US can just print more, which is pretty much free money. However the Middle East is the clear main source of oil, so to make sure those countries do not sell in another currency, the US has to show strength. Hence taking out Iraq. Nowadays the US is an oil exporter. So it is much happier to take out the competition. That happened in Venezuela, Russia and now Iran. Keeps up the oil price, which helps the US economy.
However those are all reactions to events, rather then some grand strategy. The US just wants to keep its position in the world.
It is not just about copying technology, but also about systems. If you are smart, you can see what worked for other countries in the past and copy that. South Korea and Taiwan basically copied Japans approach to development and now China copies that approach as well. Modified, but they know it works.
Would be an option. Another really good one would be a reform of the election system. It is insane that Labour got 2/3 of the seats in parliament with only 1/3 of the votes. Even worse with Reform polling at about 1/3 of the votes right now.
Russia is worse then the US is, but the US is working on it. Both are helping out likeminded European groups. Musk was turning up at German and British facist party events for a reason.
It does not even need to be a majority. Actually doing it makes you more believable when you promote any sort of action. It also works as a sort of promotion in itself. As in people can see you cycle, not eat meat or have solar panels on your roof. By doing it, you also create demand for the alternative, like for example solar panels, bicycles or vegan products. That makes those alternatives easier and cheaper to purchase. It also makes it politically easier to ban something, as part of the society is not impacted at all.
In the end calling somebody an idiot, for promoting individual action due it not being an attempt to change society is just dumb. After all anybody who does that promotion tries to bring other people to do something. At that point it really is no longer the action of an individual. Honestly it really is a simple way to lobby against such actions on a bigger scale.